3 ms·

> No, I just happen to be the only person here with firearms training that is brave enough Very brave of you. I have some (mild, think seriousmode CCW class) t

> No, I just happen to be the only person here with firearms training that is brave enough Very brave of you. I have some (mild, think seriousmode CCW class) training in the area too, and FWIW it doesn't exactly match your description. > trying to help uninformed folks focus on what matters But you're the one who's constantly muddying the waters and turning this into a flame war instead of conversation. Reread the article, then reread this thread. If you come to the conclusion that you're doing something constructive or helpful, rather than that you have ulterior motives or need to seriously improve your communication skills, there's probably no reconciling your POV with anyone else's.

Alupis 4y ago
If you have some training as you claim you do, then you too would realize 107 rounds fired is not unusual or unexpected, given the events of that evening. (FYI not from the article, this is a sidebar conversation about some other event that you may have waded into unknowingly). The only point I raised was 107 rounds fired from 7 or more individuals is not unusual. Folks like to run around with some number of rounds fired as-if it indicates malfeasance - but it really doesn't. That was the only point I was making... everything else is "what-if" noise... Zero judgement was passed on the events themselves, but it seems people want to force you to state an opinion none-the-less.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  You raised that point in a context though, talking about a specific event, under a greater conversation about a specific article, and without qualification. If you're talking about how your dad got stabbed 30 times by muggers and somebody blithely comments about how that seems like a pretty reasonable number of stabbings based on standard mugging procedure, you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue and at worst an attempt to distract from or even justify it. If you'd said, "we should focus more on how the shooting started in the first place and the sheer incompetence and us-vs-them mentality that allows cops to cross the violence threshold so constantly & without consequences, rather than the specific number of bullets lodged in various things" you might have had a better and more constructive conversation. As it stands, you've doubled and tripled down on that not mattering, and I think it gives an impression to readers. Very, very off topic, but I do think it's kind of weird to magdump in a public space. We're taught to be extremely cautious of what's behind our targets at all times, and the corollary to 'once the tool comes out, you use it' is 'try not to bring the tool out at all costs', which you conveniently leave out as well. Finally, I don't know how good you are in terms of time to reacquire but squeezing more than 3 or 4 in a row definitely throws my aim off (even with a relatively heavy CZ75 SP01 or my million pound 1911 - I imagine the cops use a more polymer-intensive and therefore lighter weapon) (also assuming still that these are handguns and not long guns of some sort), so just indiscriminately dumping 17+1 or whatever doesn't strike me as a viable approach to hitting your target. Cops do a very poor job of all of this, and people rightly want their poor performance to be held to account.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    > you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue Add to that... if they said "you just don't understand -- this isn't the movies, you don't just stab a person once and they die, you have to keep stabbing until they stop moving. I don't think any of you understand, you don't have the training I do to see that clearly this is a reasonable course of action for anyone who is intending to stab someone" This whole thread is an absolute absurdity, to keep falling back on "you just don't get it, it's not the movies" and "we're focusing on the wrong thing, the number of bullets" when .. no one here is focusing on the numbers of bullets except the person arguing with, in most cases, himself.

Alupis 4y ago

If you have some training as you claim you do, then you too would realize 107 rounds fired is not unusual or unexpected, given the events of that evening. (FYI not from the article, this is a sidebar conversation about some other event that you may have waded into unknowingly). The only point I raised was 107 rounds fired from 7 or more individuals is not unusual. Folks like to run around with some number of rounds fired as-if it indicates malfeasance - but it really doesn't. That was the only point I was making... everything else is "what-if" noise... Zero judgement was passed on the events themselves, but it seems people want to force you to state an opinion none-the-less.

WaxProlix 4y ago
You raised that point in a context though, talking about a specific event, under a greater conversation about a specific article, and without qualification. If you're talking about how your dad got stabbed 30 times by muggers and somebody blithely comments about how that seems like a pretty reasonable number of stabbings based on standard mugging procedure, you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue and at worst an attempt to distract from or even justify it. If you'd said, "we should focus more on how the shooting started in the first place and the sheer incompetence and us-vs-them mentality that allows cops to cross the violence threshold so constantly & without consequences, rather than the specific number of bullets lodged in various things" you might have had a better and more constructive conversation. As it stands, you've doubled and tripled down on that not mattering, and I think it gives an impression to readers. Very, very off topic, but I do think it's kind of weird to magdump in a public space. We're taught to be extremely cautious of what's behind our targets at all times, and the corollary to 'once the tool comes out, you use it' is 'try not to bring the tool out at all costs', which you conveniently leave out as well. Finally, I don't know how good you are in terms of time to reacquire but squeezing more than 3 or 4 in a row definitely throws my aim off (even with a relatively heavy CZ75 SP01 or my million pound 1911 - I imagine the cops use a more polymer-intensive and therefore lighter weapon) (also assuming still that these are handguns and not long guns of some sort), so just indiscriminately dumping 17+1 or whatever doesn't strike me as a viable approach to hitting your target. Cops do a very poor job of all of this, and people rightly want their poor performance to be held to account.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  > you'd take it as -- at best -- off-topic and cruelly dismissive of the core issue Add to that... if they said "you just don't understand -- this isn't the movies, you don't just stab a person once and they die, you have to keep stabbing until they stop moving. I don't think any of you understand, you don't have the training I do to see that clearly this is a reasonable course of action for anyone who is intending to stab someone" This whole thread is an absolute absurdity, to keep falling back on "you just don't get it, it's not the movies" and "we're focusing on the wrong thing, the number of bullets" when .. no one here is focusing on the numbers of bullets except the person arguing with, in most cases, himself.